COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § No. 08-18-00064-CR § Appeal from the EX PARTE: JESUS AGUILAR. § 243rd District Court § of El Paso County, Texas § (TC# 970D04229-243-2) § OPINION In this appeal from a grant of Jesus Aguilar’s second application for post-conviction habeas corpus relief, the State asserts that the trial court erred by considering grounds advanced in Aguilar’s application that had either been subject to procedural default or else failed on the merits. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment denying relief. BACKGROUND Aguilar was indicted on one felony count of possessing less than a gram of a controlled substance (cocaine) on or about May 3, 1997. He pleaded guilty to the class-A misdemeanor crime of possession on January 15, 1999, and was placed on community supervision for two years. The trial court granted Aguilar’s request for early termination of community supervision in February 2000. Later, on May 28, 2014, Aguilar filed an Article 11.072 application for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. In his initial habeas application, Aguilar asserted that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (1) failing to advise him of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty as required by Padilla v. Kentucky,1 and (2) failing to file a motion to suppress the cocaine. The trial court granted habeas relief. This Court reversed, finding that the record did not support either claim and that Aguilar’s guilty plea pre-dated the immigration consequence disclosure requirement imposed by Padilla in 2010. Ex parte Aguilar, No. 08-14-00204-CR, 2016 WL 921904, at *4-*6 (Tex.App.—El Paso Mar. 9, 2016, pet. ref’d)(not designated for publication)(Aguilar I). Aguilar filed a subsequent application for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus on October 30, 2017. In his subsequent writ application, Aguilar argued (1) his plea was involuntarily made because he did not understand that pleading guilty to receive a deferred adjudication dismissal would mean that he would still be considered a felon for federal immigration and sentencing enhancement purposes; and (2) the Texas deferred adjudication statute violates due process because Texas law states that a person who successfully completes deferred adjudication does not suffer the penalty of conviction, and yet a person who completes deferred adjudication may still be subject to additional penalties under federal law, meaning that the federal government is not giving full faith and credit to Texas law stating that he was not “convicted” under state law. The trial court granted habeas relief. This State’s appeal followed. DISCUSSION In five issues, the State generally avers that all of the bases Aguilar advanced in support of his habeas application have either been procedurally defaulted or else fail on the merits. We will 1 559 U.S. 356 (2010) 2 take the State’s issues out of order, addressing the ineffective assistance of counsel arguments first before turning to the due process arguments. A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Aguilar advanced two separate ineffective assistance of counsel claims before the trial court: (1) ineffective assistance based on a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals